Mediman14 said:
I am a Harassment Advisor/ WRA. In the past couple months, I have received couple of complaints or questions on how to proceed. I have look in the HA Policy, but I didn't see the answer I was looking for.
If an Harassment Complaint was launched against an CO (who is the RO), Does the complaint have to go thru the CO? In turn the CO must send it higher. Is that accurate? If so, that doesn't seem right in my opinion.
The Policy is not totally clear, if an complaint is against an RO/ CO, the complaint must go to the CO's supervisor
The best policy to access to answer your question is: https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/healthy-workplace/prevention-resolution-harassment/guide-applying-harassment-resolution-process.html#toc3
1. If the CO is the respondent he cannot obviously be the Responsible Officer.
Excerpt: :The formal resolution process as outlined in the Directive on the Harassment Complaint Process requires that a complaint be filed in writing and calls upon an impartial person to determine whether or not a person’s rights have been infringed upon. This approach is sometimes necessary to protect an individual’s rights, to shed light on the alleged incidents and to determine appropriate corrective and or disciplinary measures."
2. The WRA/HA should speak to the Base/Bde/Div Level (one-up) HA who will seek the advice of the chain of command at that level for the appointment of a RO - impartial person.
At that level it will have to be determine by the RO and HA if the complaint meets the elements of the definition of harassment: https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/healthy-workplace/prevention-resolution-harassment/guide-applying-harassment-resolution-process.html#toc3-2
Consideration
Elements of the definition
For a complaint to be deemed admissible, the different elements of the definition should be present:
The respondent displayed a potentially improper and offensive conduct;
The behaviour was directed at the complainant;
The complainant was offended or harmed;
The respondent knew or reasonably ought to have known that his or her behaviour would cause offence or harm;
The behaviour occurred in the workplace or at any location or any event related to work (as per the policy scope in the Application section of the Policy on Harassment Prevention and Resolution).
Repetitious behaviour versus single event
It is important to consider the severity and impropriety of the behaviour (act, comment or display) in the circumstances and context of each situation. Essentially, the definition of harassment means that more than one act or event need to be present in order to constitute harassment and that taken individually, this act or event need not constitute harassment. It is the repetition that generates the harassment. In other words, workplace harassment consists of repeated and persistent behaviours towards an individual to torment, undermine, frustrate or provoke a reaction from that person. It is a behaviour that with persistence, pressures, frightens, intimidates or incapacitates another person. Each behaviour, viewed individually, may seem inoffensive, however, it is the synergy and repetitive characteristic of the behaviours that produce harmful effects.
Please note that one single incident can constitute harassment when it is demonstrated that it is severe and has an important and lasting impact on the complainant.
Intention
In order to conclude that harassment occurred, the intent of the respondent to cause offence or harm by his/her acts, comments or displays does not need to be demonstrated; it is the impact on the other person that is taken into account. However, if this intent was present and can be demonstrated, it will be a factor in the determination of the corrective or disciplinary measures.
Reasonableness
To determine if a person ought to have reasonably known that the behaviour was improper, we must ask what a reasonable person, well informed of all the circumstances and finding himself or herself in the same situation as that of the complainant, would conclude. The behaviour in question is not only assessed by the impact or effect on the person, but it is also assessed against a reasonably objective standard. Did the behaviour exceed the reasonable and usual limits of interaction in the workplace? Would a reasonable person be offended or harmed by this conduct?
3. Step 2 – Reviewing the complaint
Once the complaint has been acknowledged, the person responsible for managing the complaint process proceeds with the review of the complaint to determine whether or not the allegations satisfy the definition of harassment (see definition found in Annex A of the Directive on the Harassment Complaint Process and examples provided in Annex A and Annex B of this document), and if necessary, seeks additional information from the complainant. The person responsible for managing the complaint process should be satisfied that the allegations and information provided, assuming they are true, satisfy the definition of harassment.
Complaints that do not meet the definition of harassment
If the person responsible for managing the complaint process determines that the allegations are frivolous or do not satisfy the definition of harassment, he or she informs the complainant that the complaint can not be accepted and provides the reasons for his decision.
In order to respect the principles of procedural fairness, the respondent is notified that a complaint was received, is provided with the allegations as they relate to him or her and the reasons why the complaint was not accepted. If the respondent requires a copy of the complaint, he or she has a right to obtain it.
If appropriate, the parties’ managers can be made aware of the situation and are provided with the information on a need to know basis only. The person responsible for managing the complaint process may redirect the complainant to the appropriate avenue of recourse such as referring the person(s) to an Informal Conflict Resolution practitioner or suggest other means of resolving the issue. Many behaviours that do not meet the definition of harassment may still undermine wellness and excellence at work.
4. Step 3 – Exploring options
The person responsible for managing the complaint process determines what efforts have already been made to resolve the problem and identifies with the parties the various avenues of resolution available. If appropriate, the parties’ manager may be involved in order to assist the parties in resolving the problem.
